326.913 
M29c 


UNIVER  SITY 


ft- 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,    mutilation,    and    underlining    of    books    are    reasons 

for   disciplinary   action   and   may   result   in   dismissal   from 

the  University. 

To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-84OO 

UNIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS    LIBRARY    AT    URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


JUL26 
a    Z6 


HOT\Ci 

,«*  aH  library  w 


1888 


SEP  1  9  19B8 


MAY2fl 


- 


1992 


ats! 

(j  :^0  00 


L161— O-1096 


The   Chicago   Common   Council 

and  the 

Fugitive  Slave  Law 
of  1850 


BY 


CHARLES    W.    MANN. 


THE    CHICAGO    COMMON    COUNCIL    AND 
THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  OF  1850, 

AN  ADDRESS  READ  BEFORE 
THE   CHICAGO    HISTORICAL   SOCIETY 

AT  A  SPECIAL  MEETING  HELD 
JANUARY  29,  1903, 


CHARLES    W.    MANN. 


THE  CHICAGO  COMMON  COUNCIL  AND  THE 
FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  OF  1850, 


On  the  first  day  of  January,  1850,  the  Charleston, 
S.  C.  Mercury  made  the  following  statement  in  its  editorial 
columns :  "When  the  future  historian  shall  address  himself 
to  the  task  of  portraying  the  rise,  progress,  and  decline 
of  the  American  Union,  the  year  1850  will  arrest  his  at- 
tention as  presenting  the  first  arraying  of  those  hostile 
forces  and  opposing  elements  which  resulted  in  disunion, 
and  the  world  will  have  another  illustration  of  the  great 
truth  that  forms  of  government,  however  correct  in  theory, 
are  only  reliable  as  they  conduce  to  the  peace,  quiet  and 
conscious  security  of  the  governed." 

It  was  the  absence  of  this  feeling  of  conscious  secur- 
ity which  led  the  South  to  repeated  attempts  to  extend 
and  to  define  more  clearly  the  principles  of  the  original 
compromises  of  the  Constitution;  which  caused  them  to 
use  questionable  logic  to  maintain  a  position  rapidly  becom- 
ing untenable.  It  was  the  absence  of  this  feeling  which  led 
them  to  demand  not  only  that  the  North  should  support 
the  laws  protecting  slavery,  but  that  attacks  upon  the  insti- 
tution and  its  extension  should  cease. 

Moreover,  a  great  change  'had  taken  place  through 
the  internal  development  of  the  country.  Increased  facili- 
ties for  transportation  had  led  to  the  settlement  of  large 
areas  of  the  West,  and  in  these  settlements  new  ideas  pre- 
vailed, and  from  them  a  new  party  was  to  spring.  The 
currents  of  national  politics,  long  confined  to  well-known 
channels,  were  deflected  into  new  courses. 

The  year  1850  was  important  also  from  the  standpoint 
of  party  leadership.  The  death  of  Oalhoun  made  the  first 
vacancy  in  the  great  triumvirate.  The  measures  of  adjust- 
ment of  1850  were  the  last  public  acts  shaped  by  Clay's 
hands,  while  the  few  remaining  years  of  Webster's  life  were 
not  given  to  active  politics.  The  work  of  such  men  as 
Cass  and  Benton  was  practically  completed,  and  Douglas 


57 


stood  at  the  parting  of  the  ways.  These  were  the  greatest 
men  who  had  learned  from  the  fathers  of  the  republic  the 
lesson  of  forbearance,  the  spirit  of  compromise  in  which 
the  Constitution  was  framed.  A  younger  generation  mov- 
ed by  a  stronger  sectional  feeling  and  more  keenly  alive  to 
the  evils  or  necessities  of  the  "peculiar  institution"  of  the 
South,  became  party  leaders,  and  that  disunion  which  Clay 
boasted  to  have  deferred  for  thirty  years  by  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  and  which  he  hoped  to  defer  as  long  by  the 
Compromise  of  1850,  was  to  become  a  fact  within  eleven 
years. 

The  Constitution  was  essentially  a  compact  and  a 
series  of  compromises.  Individualism  in  the  States  threat- 
ened to  undo  the  work  of  the  revolution.  The  necessity 
for  fellowship  and  goodwill  among  the  States,  the  standing 
of  the  new  republic  among  the  nations  of  the  world,  the 
government  of  the  western  territories  and  questions  of 
trade,  made  union  imperative,  and  that  union  only  was 
possible  which  respected  the  peculiar  institutions,  customs 
and  prejudices  of  the  several  States. 

The  men  who  framed  the  Constitution  were  neither 
unmindful  of  the  dangers  of  slavery  nor  blind  to  its  in- 
iquity. 

"The  real  difference  of  interests,"  said  Madison,  "lies 
not  between  the  large  and  small  States,  but  between  the 
Northern  and  Southern  States.  The  institution  of  slavery 
and  its  consequences  form  the  line  of  discrimination."1 

It  was  the  opinion  of  Gouverneur  Morris  that  slavery 
was  a  nefarious  institution,  a  curse  of  Heaven.  He  could 
not  agree  to  give  the  same  representation  to  a  citizen  of 
Georgia  or  South  Carolina  that  was  given  to  a  citizen  of 
New  Jersey  or  Pennsylvania,  who  viewed  with  laudable 
horror  so  nefarious  a  traffic  as  the  slave  trade.2 

Others  who  were  opposed  to  slavery,  both  in  princi- 
ple and  practice,  favored  the  compromise  which  would  ad- 
mit the  slave-holding  States,  provided  the  slave  trade 
were  restricted  or  abolished  after  a  term  of  years.3 

The  members  of  the  convention  from  the  South  had 
no  doubts  as  to  the  justice  or  wisdom  of  their  views.  Re- 
ligion and  humanity  'had  nothing  to  do  with  the  question ; 
interest  alone  was  the  governing  principle  of  States.  The 

1  Madison,  Notes  of  Federal  Convention,  July  14. 

2  Madison's  Notes,  August  8. 

3  Madison's  Notes,  August  25. 

58 


votes  of  South  Carolina  could  not  be  cast  for  the  Consti- 
tution unless  emancipation  of  slaves  and  taxation  of  ex- 
ports were  prohibited.1 

The  adoption  of  the  Constitution  established  slavery 
upon  the  following  bases : 

1.  The  slave  trade  was  not  to  be  abolished  before 
1808. 

2.  Slavery,  where  it  existed,  was  not  to  be  molested, 
and  property  in  slaves  was  recognized  in  determining  rep- 
resentation. 

3.  Persons  held  to  service  in  one  State  and  escaping 
theretrom  were  to  be  given  up. 

4.  By  the  confirmation  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  Con- 
gress may  be  said  to  have  established  a  precedent  for  the 
later  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  territories. 

The  subsequent  history  of  slavery  from  these  four 
standpoints  may  be  considered  briefly.  The  slave  trade 
was  abolished  by  law  in  accordance  with  the  constitutional 
provision  and,  to  the  opening  of  the  civil  war,  political 
parties  in  the  North  were  opposed,  in  general,  to  any  inter- 
ference with  slavery  in  the  States.  The  chief  objects  for 
consideration!  are,  therefore,  slavery  in  the  Territories  and 
the  fugitive  slave  laws. 

The  South  developed  rapidly,  but  upon  a  less  perma- 
nent foundation  than  the  North.  Emancipation  practically 
ceased,  and  the  interstate  slave  trade,  constantly  increased 
by  the  demands  from  the  far  South,  became  a  source  of 
income  to  the  border  slave  States.  States  were  admitted 
alternately  as  free  and  slave,  thus  preserving  the  balance  of 
power  in  the  Senate.  The  question  of  slavery  in  the  Lou- 
isiana Purchase  was  settled  temporarily  by  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  Notwithstanding  the  addition  to  slave  terri- 
tory made  by  this  measure,  the  South  sought  further  ex- 
tension. Cuba  and  parts  of  Central  America  were  regarded 
as  possibilities.  The  admission  of  Texas  added  greatly  to 
the  territorial  strength  of  slavery. 

In  August,  1847,  when  the  question  of  appropriations 
to  meet  the  conditions  of  the  Mexican  treaty  were  being 
discussed,  David  Wilmot  proposed  an  amendment  to  the 
bill  to  the  effect  that  slavery  should  'be  prohibited  forever 
in  all  territory  thus  obtained.  This  amendment  was  unnec- 
essary, and  in  the  state  of  public  feeling  at  that  time,  was 


1    Madison's  Notes,  August  24. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


unwise.     The  South  regarded  it  as  a  direct  attack  upon 
slavery  as  an  institution ;  as  an  effort  to  prevent  the  slave- 
holding  States  from  acquiring  their  just  proportion  of  the 
new  territory,  and  as  -a  possible  step  toward  emancipa- 
tion.    Benton  says  of  it:     "Under  the  laws  of  Mexico 
slavery  was  prohibited  in  Mexico  and  California.    A  change 
of  laws  would  be  necessary  to  introduce  it.    The  proviso 
could  serve  no  purpose,  save  to  bring  on  a  slavery  agitation, 
for  which  purpose  it  was  seized  upon  by  Mr.  Calhoun  and 
his  friends,  and  treated  as  the  greatest  possible  outrage  and 
injury  to  the  slave  States.    The  South  could  take  no  steps 
to  make  it  slave  territory,  since  they  had  just  invented  the 
dogma,  'No  power  in  Congress  to  legislate  upon  slavery 
in  the  territories.'    Never  were  two  parties  so  completely 
at  loggerheads   about   nothing.     Since   1835   the  slavery 
agitation  had  been  a  game  played  by  the  abolitionists  on 
the  one  side  and  the  disunionists  on  the  other,  to  accom- 
plish their  own  purposes.     Mr.  Calhoun  hugged  the  pro- 
viso to  his  heart  as  a  means  of  forcing  the  issue  between 
North  and  South,  and  deprecated  any  adjustment,  com- 
promise or  defeat  of  it  as  a  misfortune  to  the  South.    The 
dogma  of  'No  right  in  Congress  to  legislate  upon  slavery 
in  the  territories  led  to  the  abrogation  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise.   To  enforce  this  doctrine  in  the  territory  in  ques- 
tion it  was  necessary  to  support  it  by  another,  'The  trans- 
migration of  the  Constitution  with  all  its  guarantees  and 
powers,  over-riding  all  the  anti-slavery  laws  which  it  found 
there.'1    We  need  not  consider  these  doctrines  further  for 
our  purpose.     They  found  a  place  in  the  Compromise  of 
1850;  were  admitted  by  Cass  in  the  Nicholson  letter,  and 
were  amplified  by  Douglas  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 
The  North,  which  might  have  been  passive  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery  in  the  States,  was  active  to  the  last  degree 
upon  its  introduction  or  protection  in  the  Territories. 

The  first  fugitive  'slave  law  was  enacted  under  cir- 
cumstances peculiarly  prophetic.  A  free  negro  was  ab- 
ducted from  Washington  County,  Pennsylvania,  in  1788, 
and  sold  into  slavery  in  Virginia.  Indictments  were  re- 
turned against  the  kidnappers  in  November  of  the  same 
year,  when  it  was  found  that  two  of  the  three  had  escaped, 
presumably  to  Kentucky.  The  abolition  society  of  Penn- 
sylvania in  1791  addressed  a  memorial  to  the  Governor, 


1    Benton,  Thirty  Years  View  p.  695. 

60 


General  Mifflin,  urging  that  action  be  taken  for  the  return 
of  the  criminals  and  their  victim.  A  demand  was  made 
upon  Virginia  through  her  Governor,  Beverly  Randolph, 
for  the  return  of  the  fugitives ;  but  this  demand  was  refused 
upon  the  opinion  of  James  Innis,  Attorney  General  of  Vir- 
ginia, who  held  that  the  crime  was  not  treason  or  felony, 
and  that  the  words  "other  crimes"  of  the  Constitution  ap- 
plied only  to  those  over  which  the  State  making  the  demand 
had  exclusive  jurisdiction.  Moreover,  the  Constitution 
did  not  prescribe  the  manner  of  delivery,  and  every  free- 
man in  Virginia  was  held  to  be  entitled  to  the  unmolested 
enjoyment  of  his  liberty  unless  it  was  taken  away  by  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  or  those  of  Virginia. 

The  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  Edmund 
Randolph,  held  that  an  indictment  by  a  grand  jury  was  a 
competent  charge ;  that  the  delivery  must  come  from  Vir- 
ginia, but  that  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania  had  offered 
no  definite  proof  that  the  act  committed  was  a  crime  against 
the  laws  of  Pennsylvania.  Definite  proof  was  lacking  that 
the  accused  had  escaped  from  Pennsylvania  and  had 
been  found  in  Virginia.  "Without  such  proof  the  execu- 
tive of  Virginia  ought  not  to  have  delivered  the  fugitives; 
with  it  they  might  not  refuse."1  All  of  .the  papers  in  the 
case  were  transmitted  to  the  President  and  by  him  placed 
before  Congress.  The  Act  of  Congress  approved  February 
12,  1793,  was  the  result. 

The  first  two  sections  of  the  act  apply  to  fugitives  from 
justice.  The  third  section  provides  for  the  return  of  fugi- 
tives from  labor  upon  the  appearance  of  the  claimant  to 
such  service  before  any  judge  of  the  circuit  or  district 
Cour^,  or  before  any  magistrate  of  a  county,  city,  or  town 
corporate  wherein  the  seizure  was  made.  Upon  proof, 
either  oral  or  'by  affidavit,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  magis- 
trate, of  the  claimant's  right  to  such  service  and  of  the 
identity  of  the  fugitive,  a  certificate  was  issued  for  his 
removal  to  the  State  from  which  he  fled. 

The  fourth  section  provided  penalties  in  cases  of  ob- 
struction of  arrest,  rescue,  or  concealment  of  the  fugitive. 
This  penalty  was  to  be  obtained  by  action  for  debt  and  did 
not  waive  the  right  of  further  action  for  damages.2 

The  execution  of  the  law  was  irregular  and  subject  to 

1  American  State  Papers.    Miscellaneous    I.    28  et  seq. 

2  Annals  of  Congress,  III,  1414. 


61 


local  sentiment.  In  many  cases  means  were  found  to  lib- 
erate fugitives  from  arrest  or  to  stay  proceedings.  The 
Constitutional  compact  was  obscured  !by  the  natural  right 
of  the  fugitives,  and  Northern  sympathy  was  always  pass- 
ively and  often  actively  enlisted  against  the  slave  holder 
and  in-  favor  of  the  slave.  During  the  first  quarter  cen- 
tury of  the  republic  the  increase  of  the  interstate  slave  trade 
led  to  the  frequent  kidnaping  of  freemen  from  the  Northern 
States,  while  the  number  of  fugitives  was  increased  by  the 
dread  of  plantation  life  in  the  far  South. 

In  1818  Mr.  Pindall,  of  Virginia,  introduced  a  bill  to 
provide  more  effectually  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves.1 
The  act  was  amended,  chiefly  to  secure  the  rights  of  free- 
men of  color,  by  providing  heavy  penalties  for  the  trans- 
portation of  alleged  fugitive  slaves  before  the  question  of 
slavery  was  decided  by  a  competent  court.  One  amend- 
ment, negatived  by  a  large  majority,  proposed  to  make  the 
judges  of  the  State  in  which  the  fugitive  was  seized  the 
tribunal  to  decide  the  fact  of  slavery.2  The  arguments 
for  and  against  the  bill  were  much  the  same  as  those 
urged  in  the  debates  on  the  Act  of  1850.  The  bill  passed 
the  Senate  with  some  amendments,  but  was  tabled  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.3 

The  next  serious  blow  to  the  Act  of  1793  was  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Prigg  vs. 
Pennsylvania.4  In  1832  one  Margaret  Morgan,  a  slave, 
escaped  from  Maryland  to  Pennsylvania.  In  1837  Edward 
Prigg,  the  legally  constituted  attorney  for  the  owner,  made 
oath  before  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  of  York  County,  Penn- 
sylvania, of  the  facts  of  the  slavery  and  escape  of  the  said 
Margaret  Morgan.  In  accordance  with  this  oath  a  war- 
rant was  issued  for  the  arrest  of  the  fugitive.  The  arrest 
was  made  in  proper  form,  but  'the  justice  to  whom  the  case 
came  refused  to  take  further  cognizance  of  the  case,  a  re- 
fusal based  upon  a  law  of  Pennsylvania  passed  March  25, 
1826,  whereupon  Edward  Prigg,  in  violation  of  that  law, 
removed  Margaret  Morgan  and  her  children,  one  of  whom 
had  been  born  in  Pennsylvania,  more  than  a  year  after 
the  escape  of  the  mother,  to  the  State  of  Maryland  and 
delivered  them  to  the  owner.  The  decision,  delivered  by 

1  Annals  of  Congress,  XXXII  513. 

2  Annals  of  Congress.  XXXII  829. 

3  Annals  of  Congress,  XXXII  1393. 

4  U.  S.  Reports  16  Peters  536,  et  seq. 


Justice  Story,  maintained  that  the  law  of  Pennsylvania  was 
unconstitutional,  because  it  purported  to  punish  as  a  pub- 
lic offense  against  that  State,  the  act  of  seizing  and  re- 
moving a  slave,  which  act  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  was  designed  to  justify  and  uphold.  This  decision 
stated  further  that  the  right  of  a  citizen  of  a  slave-holding 
State  to  the  recovery  of  his  fugitive  slave  was  a  funda- 
mental right  granted  by  the  Constitution.  The  purpose  of 
the  law  was  to  guard  this  species  of  property  against  the 
doctrines  prevailing  in  the  non-slave-holding  States,  and 
to  prevent  intermeddling,  obstruction,  or  abolition  of  the 
rights  of  slave  owners.  The  Act  of  Feb.  12,  1793,  was 
clearly  constitutional  in  all  of  its  provisions,  and,  with  the 
exception  of  that  part  which  conferred  authority  on  State 
magistrates,  was  free  from  reasonable  doubt  or  difficulty. 
The  court  entertained  no  difference  of  opinion  upon  the 
powers  of  State  magistrates  under  the  law.  State  magis- 
trates might,  if  they  chose,  exercise  the  authority,  unless 
prohibited  by  the  State  Legislatures.  But  the  clause  relat- 
ing to  fugitive  slaves  was  found  in  the  National  Constitu- 
tion and  not  in  that  of  any  State,  and  to  insist  that  States 
were  bound  to  provide  means  to  carry  into  effect  the  duties 
of  the  National  Government  nowhere  delegated  to  them, 
might  well  be  deemed  an  unconstitutional  exercise  of  the 
power  of  interpretation.  The  National  Government  is 
bound  through  its  own  proper  departments  to  carry  into 
effect  the  rights  and  duties  imposed  upon  it  by  the  Con- 
stitution. The  constitutional  legislation  of  Congress  super- 
sedes that  of  the  States  upon  the  same  subject. 

In  short,  this  decision  placed  the  execution  of  the  Act 
of  1793  in  the  hands  of  the  general  government  and  thereby 
left  unimpaired  the  action  of  several  States  prohibiting 
State  officers  from  executing  it.  Thus  the  legal  machinery 
became  inadequate  for  the  execution  of  the  law,  and  with 
the  increasing  feeling  at  the  North,  the  complaints  of  the 
South  became  constant. 

This  question  seemed  to  Webster  to  be  the  only  real 
complaint  of  the  South.1  He  saw  in  the  attitude  of  many 
of  the  Northern  States  a  distinct  determination  to  deprive 
the  slave  States  of  the  rights  guaranteed  them  by  the  Con- 
stitution. Deeming  it  to  be  the  duty  of  every  good  citizen 
to  obey  the  Constitution  in  all  of  its  provisions,  he  advocated 

1    Webster  7th  March  Speech. 

63 


the  fugitive  slave  law,  while  personally  preferring  a  form 
Which  would  safeguard  more  effectually  the  rights  of  the 
fugitive. 

The  Southern  members  of  Congress  did  not  expect 
much  from  the  new  law.  Mason,  who  introduced  the  bill, 
said:  "I  fear  that,  pass  what  laws  we  may,  such  laws  will 
be  found  inoperative;  for  no  law  can  be  carried  into  effect 
unless  it  is  sustained  and  supported  by  the  loyalty  of  the 
people  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  It  will  be  just  impossible  to 
recover  a  fugitive  slave  from  Ohio  or  Pennsylvania  as  it 
would  be  to  bring  him  from  the  depths  of  the  sea."1 

North  and  South  were  looking  at  the  question  from 
opposite  and  irreconciliable  standpoints.  The  North  be- 
lieved that  the  issuing  of  a  writ  by  the  commissioner  con- 
demned the  negro,  fugitive  or  freeman,  to  bondage.  They, 
had  no  confidence  in  the  Southern  laws  protecting  the  free 
black.  The  South,  on  the  other  hand,  saw  in  the  attitude 
of  the  North  the  beginning  of  a  determination  to  abolish 
the  institution  of  slavery. 

The  law  of  1850  was  unnecessarily  harsh.  It  assumed 
that  the  majority  of  the  officials  of  the  North  and  the  peo- 
ple in  general  would  not  only  make  no  effort  to  carry  out 
the  constitutional  compact,  but  would  resist  such  efforts 
by  force.  Several  milder  'bills  were  proposed  in  the  Sen- 
ate, among  them  on*e  by  Webster,  which  allowed  a  jury 
trial  to  the  fugitive,  providing  that  he  denied  on  oath  the 
right  of  the  claimant  to  his  services.  This  bill  required  the 
claimant  to  establish  •his  claim,  the  identity  of  the  fugitive, 
and  the  legal  existence  of  slavery  in  the  State  from  which 
the  fugitive  escaped.2 

Senator  Pratt,  of  Maryland,  introduced  amendments 
similar  in  effect  to  the  bill  as  finally  passed,  except  im  their 
further  provision  that  if  the  fugitive  were  not  delivered,  the 
claimant  might  bring  suit  against  the  district  attorney  of  the 
district  in  which  he  resided  for  the  value  of  the  slave  and 
costs.  This  amount  was  to  be  determined  by  a  jury,  and  the 
judgment  was  to  be  paid  by  the  Treasurer  of  the  United 
States.  Should  the  fugitive  be  returned  at  any  future  time, 
the  claimant  'became  liable  to  the  United  States  for  the 
value  of  the  slave  at  the  time  of  his  return.3 

The  most  remarkable  provision  of  all,  the  one  least 

1  Congressional  Globe,  XXI  Part  I,  233. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  XXI  Part  II,  1111. 

3  Congressional  Globe,  XXII  Part  II  1616. 


64 


likely  to  be  successful,  and  yet  most  deserving  of  success, 
since  it  gave  the  fugitive  slave  all  possible  safeguards 
against  injustice,  was  the  bill  of  Senator  Seward.  It  pro- 
vided for  trial  by  jury  in  the  State  in  which  the  fugitive 
was  arrested.  Judges  were  to  grant  bail  and  necessary 
continuances.  The  claimant  was  required  to  give  bonds 
to  satisfy  reasonable  claims  for  damages,  and  the  judg- 
ment might  be  taken  to  the  District  Courts  for  revision. 
Judges  and  marshals  were  under  heavy  penalties  to  allow 
and  serve  writs.  The  till  embodied  Seward's  idea  that 
the  fugitive  law  to  be  effective  must  be  as  lenient  as  pos- 
sible. The  bill  attracted  little  attention  at  the  North,  but 
it  was  regarded  by  the  South  as  a  studied  insult.1 

Debate  upon  the  final  bill  in  the  Senate  was  moderate 
and  dignified.  In  the  House  local  sentiment  was  expressed 
more  freely. 

Brown,  of  Mississippi,  said:  "You  think  slavery  a 
great  curse.  Very  well,  think  so ;  but  keep  your  thoughts 
to  yourselves.  If  it  be  an  evil,  it  is  our  evil;  if  it  be  a 
curse,  it  is  our  curse.  We  are  not  seeking  to  force  it  upon 
you.  We  intend  to  keep  it  ourselves.  If  you  do  not 
want  to  come  in  contact  with  it,  stay  where  you  are.  It  will 
never  pursue  you.  For  myself,  I  regard  slavery  as  a  great 
moral,  social,  political  and  religious  'blessing — a  blessing 
to  the  slave  and  a  blessing  to  the  master.  This  is  my 
opinion.  I  do  not  seek  to  propagate  it."* 

The  sentiment  of  the  Northwest  was  expressed  by 
George  W.  Julian,  of  Indiana:  "Nature  is  always  agitat- 
ing the  question  of  slavery  and  persuading  its  victims  to 
flee.  You  hold  three  millions  of  your  fellow  beings  as 
chattels.  You  deny  them  that  principle  of  eternal  justice — 
a  fair  day's  wages  for  a  fair  day's  work.  The  free  States 
will  observe  faithfully  the  compromises  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. They  will  give  up  their  soil  as  a  hunting  ground  for 
the  slave  holders.  But  they  will  not  actively  co-operate 
against  the  unhappy  victims  of  their  tyranny.  And  if 
Southern  gentlemen  mean  to  insist  upon  such  active  co- 
operation on  our  part  as  a  condition  of  their  continuing 
in  the  Union,  they  may  as  well,  in  my  opinion,  begin  to 
look  about  them  for  some  way  of  getting  out  of  it  on  the 
best  terms  they  can."13 

1  Congressional  Globe,  XXI  Part  1,  236. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  XXI  Part  I,  258. 

3  Congressional  Globe,  XXII  Part  I,  573  et  seq. 

65 


The  progress  of  the  debates  upon  the  fugitive  slave 
law  in  the  Senate  and  the  House  was  watched  with  most 
intense  interest  by  North  and  South  alike.  President  Fill- 
more  was  not  certain  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  law,  and 
referred  it  to  Crittenden,  the  Attorney  General.  His  opin- 
ion was  that  the  law  was  constitutional  in  every  particular, 
that  it  did  not  suspend,  and  was  not  intended  to  suspend  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus;  that  the  power  of  Congress  over 
fugitives  was  absolute. 

The  bill  was  signed  by  the  President,  September  18. 
Then  the  storm  that  had  been  gathering  over  the  North 
broke  with  violence.  Political  conventions,  abolition  meet- 
ings, ministers'  conferences,  secret  societies,  -began  to  pour 
forth  a  deluge  of  resolutions  and  petitions  protesting 
against  the  law. 

The  Milwaukee  Free  Democrat  of  October  2  said: 
"For  ourselves,  we  give  all  due  notice  that  we  shall  tram- 
ple this  law  under  foot  at  the  first  opportunity.  Our  house 
and  our  purse  shall  always  be  open  to  the  fugitive  slave. 
The  State  is  welcome  to  our  body  and  our  money,  but  our 
conscience  is  not  in  keeping  of  Congress  or  State  Legisla- 
tures. This  slave-catching  law — we  will  say  it — is  not  only 
unconstitutional,  tout  diabolical  and  damnable.  It  is  an  out- 
rage upon  human  nature  and  an  insult  to  heaven.  We  are 
under  no  more  obligation  to  obey  such  a  law  than  we  would 
be  to  obey  a  law  requiring  us  to  commit  theft,  burglary  or 
highway  robbery.  This  law  can  never  be  enforced  until 
humanity  and  love  of  liberty  die  out  of  the  hearts  of  the 
people  and  respect  for  the  authority  of  God  is  obliterated 
from  the  souls  of  men." 

The  McHenry  County  Whig  convention  passed  a 
series  of  resolutions  affirming  their  opposition  to  the  sys- 
tem of  slavery ;  to  its  extension  to  the  territories ;  to  the 
acquisition  of  territory  for  more  slave  States,  and  urging 
its  abolition  in  all  territories  controlled  by  Congress. 

"There  is  no  better  way  to  use  up  a  man,"  said  the 
Buffalo  Republic,  "than  to  appoint  him  a  commissioner  for 
the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves  under  the  fugitive  slave 
law.  If  he  is  not  doomed  to  eternal  infamy,  we  cannot 
predict  consequences  from  causes." 

Allan  Pinkerton  offered  the  following  characteristic 
resolution  in  the  convention  at  West  City,  October  24, 
of  the  Free  Democracy  of  the  Fourth  Congressional  Dis- 
trict : 


"Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
is  emphatically  an  anti-slavery  document,  and  that  with  a 
fair  'and  just  construction  of  it  there  legally  is  not,  nor  can 
be,  a  slave  in  any  of  the  States  and  Territories  of  the  United 
States." 

Criticism  of  the  bill  was  not  confined  to  the  North. 
The  Southern  States  realized  that  the  Northern  objection 
to  this  or  any  other  bill  of  similar  import  rested  upon  a 
moral  sentiment  violated  under  protection  of  the  law,  and  a 
natural  right  taken  away  from  motives  of  respect  to  the 
compromises  of  the  Constitution. 

A  Southern  rights  meeting  was  held  at  Mobile,  Ala- 
bama, October  8.  Among  the  acts  of  the  meeting  were 
the  following  resolutions: 

"Resolved,  That  the  Act  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive 
slaves  passed  by  Congress  immediately  after  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution  was  sufficiently  effective  as  long  as  pub- 
lic sentiment  at  the  North  remained  true  to  constitutional 
obligations.  The  South  can  see  nothing  in  the  passage  of 
the  late  bill  which  will  operate  favorably  on  that  public 
sentiment." 

The  St.  Louis  Union  was  opposed  to  the  compromise 
measures  as  a  whole,  and  in  referring  to  them  said :  "The 
fugitive  slave  act  is  equally  objectionable.  We  admit  to 
the  fullest  extent  the  right  of  recovery,  and  we  desire  all 
the  guarantees  of  the  Constitution  fulfilled  to  the  letter. 
But  there  are  features  in  this  bill  which,  it  seems  to  -us, 
go  entirely  too  far  against  innocent  persons." 

The  sentiment  against  slavery  as  an  institution  was 
strong  in  Chicago.  The  opportunities  for  assisting  the 
escape  of  fugitives  under  the  law  of  1793  were  used  fre- 
quently, and  the  passage  of  the  new  bill  was  made  the 
occasion  of  further  agitation,  not  only  against  the  bill, 
but  against  the  domination  ol  the  Slave  State  party  in 
Congress,  and  in  genefal  against  any  measure  which  seem- 
ed likely  to  strengthen  the  institution  of  slavery  or  pro- 
long its  life. 

"We  have,"  said  the  Western  Citizen  "the  same  work 
before  us  that  we  marked  out  in  1848.  Slavery  is  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  Territories  by  law,  it  is  to  be  abolished  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  the  fugitive  law  is  to  be  repealed, 
and  the  influence  of  the  slave  party  as  such  is  to  be  abol- 
ished."1  

1    Western  Citizen,  Oct.  14,  1850. 

67 


"The  Long  Congress  which,  unlike  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment, had  no  Cromwell  to  dissolve  it,  closed  its  session  and 
its  labors  on  the  3Oth.  It  has  been  turbulent  and  discord* 
ant,  and  has  accomplished  but  little  substantial  good  for  the 
country.  The  measures  of  adjustment,  so-called,  are  mostly 
measures  of  sacrifice  without  insuring  the  result  so  san- 
guinely  predicted  of  bringing  peace  and  quiet  to  the  coun- 
try. Southern'  'bigots  and  Northern  fanatics  have  been 
rather  dispelled  than  'brought  together  by  the  action  of 
Congress,  which  only  proves  how  useless  it  is  to  legislate 
for  either  side  exclusively." 1 

The  colored  people  of  Chicago,  numbering  about  five 
hundred,  held  a  meeting  in  the  African  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  on  Wells  street,  to  decide  upon  a  course  of 
resistance  to  the  law.  The  Journal  says  that  there  were 
over  three  hundred  at  this  meeting,  which  was  character- 
ized by  a  degree  of  prudence  and  deliberation  no  less  re- 
markable than  commendable.  A  committee  on  resolutions 
reported  the  existence  of  a  Strong,  deep  feeling  to  resist 
to  the  last  every  attempt  to  bear  back  to  bondage  any  one 
of  their  number,  and  a  determination  to  defend  each  other 
at  the  risk  of  imprisonment,  fine,  limb,  or  life  itself.  Forced 
to  abandon  hope  of  protection  by  the  Government,  not 
daring  to  trust  to  the  protection  of  the  public,  nothing  was 
left  but  self-protection.  No  violence  would  be  used  except 
in  the  last  resort,  when  they  would  defend  themselves  at 
all  hazards.  They  believed  that  the  tendency  of  the  fugi- 
tive slave  bill  was  to  enslave  every  colored  man  in  the 
United  States,  because  no  provisions  were  made  in  the  bill 
to  guard  against  false  claims,  inasmuch  as  the  slave  hold- 
er's claim  was  to  be  considered  as  prima  facie  evidence  of 
its  validity.  They  considered  the  passage  of  the  act  as 
another  glaring  instance  of  Northern  subserviency  to  slave- 
holding  dictation.2 

Finally,  the  Liberty  Association  was  formed  for  the 
dissemination  of  the  principles  of  human  freedom,  and  all 
colored  freedmen  were  urged  to  unite  upon  this  subject 
at  the  same  time. 

A  colored  police  system  was  organized  in  seven  divi- 
sions, with  six  persons  in  each  division  to  "patrol  the  city 
each  night  and  keep  an  eye  out  for  interlopers."  This 

1  Chicago  Journal,  Oct.  29. 

2  Chicago  Journal,  Sept.  30. 


system  was  to  be  maintained  as  long  as  might  be  necessary 
for  the  safety  of  the  colored  people.1 

Two  incidents  happening  early  in*  October  were  inter- 
preted to  mean  renewed  activity  for  the  capture  and  return 
of  fugitive  slaves.  On  the  I4th  of  October,  when  it  was 
rumored  that  two  men  from  the  South  were  in  town  in 
search  of  escaped  -Slaves,  the  members  of  the  association 
just  referred  to  sent  information1  of  that  fact  to  all  the 
negro  residents,  and  conducted  a  thorough  investigation, 
which  established  the  falsity  of  the  report. 2 

The  second  incident  is  mentioned  by  the  Western 
Citizen: 

"On  Tuesday  last,  October  15,  Mr.  Uriah  Hinch,  of 
Missouri,  appeared  in  the  city  in  pursuit  of  several  fugi- 
tives. Being  himself  a  volunteer,  and  next  personally  ac- 
quainted with  the  persons  he  sought,  he  brought  with  him, 
as  an  assistant,  a  trusty  slave  to  aid  him  in  the  arrest  and 
identification.  He  displayed  his  handbill's  describing  the 
three  colored  persons,  and  sought  for  them  openly.  As 
soon  as  this  was  known  he  was  waited  on  by  some  of  our 
respectable  citizens,  and  kindly  informed  that  he  was  em- 
ployed in  an  enterprise  full  of  personal  risk.  In  the  mean- 
time, the  colored  assistant  found  an  opportunity  to  board 
a  steamer  in  the  harbor  and  to  sail  away  to  the  Queen's 
dominion.  Mr.  Hinch  heard  of  this  fact,  and  also  received 
an  intimation  that  a  coat  of  tar  and  feathers  was  preparing 
for  him.  In  alarm  he  applied  to  Justice  Lowe  for  protec- 
tion, but  was  told  that  nothing  could  be  done.  An  anti- 
slavery  lawyer  recommended  immediate  flight  as  the  safest 
course."3  This  completed  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Uriah  Hinch, 
who  left  Chicago  never  to  return.  The  Citizen  says  further : 
"It  is  proper  to  add  that  our  colored  population  are  ready 
for  any  emergency.  While  they  do  not  propose  to  use  vio- 
lence unless  driven  to  it,  they  will  not  suffer  the  new  law 
to  be  executed  upon  their  persons.  In  resisting  this  even 
to  death,  they  will  be  sustained  by  the  omnipotent  senti- 
ment of  the  citizens  of  Chicago."  The  press  of  Chicago 
united  in  condemning  the  new  law,  differing  only  in  the 
measure  of  their  condemnation ;  but  it  remained  for  the 
Common  Council  to  give  the  first  official  expression  of 

1  Chicago  Journal,  Sept.  30. 

2  Chicago  Journal,  Oct.  14. 

3  Western  Citizen,  Oct.  22nd. 


G9 


public  disapproval  and  revolt.    The  Mayor  of  Chicago  was 
James  Curtiss.    The  Alderman  were: 

First  Ward— Peter  Page,  Eli  B.  Williams. 

Second  Ward — Isaac  L.  Milliken,  Alexander  Loyd. 

Third  Ward— Smith  J.  Sherwood,  Wm.  H.  Adams. 

Fourth  Ward — Robert  H.  Foss,  A.  G.  Throop. 

Fifth  Ward — John  C.  Haines,  A.  S.  Sherman. 

Sixth  Ward — Daniel  Richards. 

Seventh  Ward — Blihu  Granger,  George  Brady. 

Eighth  Ward — George  F.  Foster,  John  C.  Dodge. 

Ninth  Ward — R.  J.  Hamilton,  F.  C.  Hageman. 

At  a  Council  meeting  Monday  night,  October  21,  the 
following  resolutions  were  introduced  by  Alderman 
Throop : 

i.  " Whereas,  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
provides  that  the  privileges  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be 
suspended  unless  when  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion, 
the  pu'blic  safety  may  require  it,  and 

"Whereas,  The  late  act  of  Congress  purporting  to  be 
for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves  virtually  suspends  the 
right  of  habeas  corpus  and  abolishes  trial  by  jury,  and  by 
its  provisions  not  only  fugitive  slaves,  but  white  men,  ow- 
ing to  service  to  another  in  another  State,  viz :  the  appren- 
tice, the  mechanic,  the  farmer,  the  laborer,  engaged  to  conr 
tract  or  otherwise,  whose  terms  of  service  are  unexpired, 
may  be  captured  and  carried  off  summarily  and  without 
legal  recourse  of  any  kind,  and 

"Whereas,  No  law  can  be  legally  or  morally  binding 
on  us  which  violates  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  and 

"Whereas,  Above  all,  in  the  responsibilities  and  duties 
of  human  life,  and  the  practice  and  propagation  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  laws  of  God  should  be  held  paramount  to  all 
human  compacts  and  statutes,  therefore 

"Resolved,  That  the  Senators  and  Representatives  in 
Congress  from  the  free  States  who  aided  and  assisted  in 
the  passage  of  this  infamous  law,  and  those  who  basely 
sneaked  away  from  their  seats  and  thereby  evaded  the 
question,  richly  merit  the  reproach  of  all  lovers  of  freedom, 
and  are  only  to  be  ranked  with  the  traitors  Benedict  Ar- 
nold and  Judas  Iscariot,  who  betrayed  his  Lord  and  master 
for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  and 

"Resolved,  That  the  citizens,  officers  and  police  of  this 
city  be  and  they  are  hereby  requested  to  abstain  from  any 
and  all  interference  in  the  capture  and  delivering  up  of  the 

70 


fugitives  of  unrighteous  oppression  of  whatever  nation, 
name  or  color. 

To  these  the  following  resolution  was  added  upon  the 
motion  of  Alderman  Sherwood : 

"Resolved,  That  the  fugitive  slave  law  lately  passed  by 
congress  is  a  cruel  and  unjust  law  and  ought  not  to  be 
respected  by  an  intelligent  community,  and  that  the  coun- 
cil will  not  require  the  police  to  render  any  assistance 
for  the  arrest  of  fugitive  slaves."1 

These  resolutions  were  adopted  by  a  vote  of  nine  to 
two.  Thus  the  question  was  placed  before  the  public  for 
discussion,  and  the  response  came  quickly. 

The  Tuesday  Democrat  makes  the  following  announce- 
ment: "Arrangements  have  been  made  for  a  mass  meet- 
ing at  the  City  Hall  this  evening  to  give  an  expression 
of  public  feeling  in  opposition  to  the  abominable  and  in- 
famous fugitive  slave  law.  We  'have  no  doubt  our  citizens 
will  turn  out  en  masse  upon  this  occasion." 

The  announcement  in  the  Western  Citizen  reads  as 
follows:  "The  citizens  of  Chicago  will  meet  this  evening 
to  take  into  consideration  the  new  fugitive  slave  law  and 
make  such  an  expression  in  relation  to  its  character  and 
their  duty  relating  thereto  as  the  occasion  demands.  All 
come." 

At  an  early  hour  on  Tuesday  evening  the  City  Hall 
was  filled  to  its  utmost  capacity. 

Thomas  Richmond  acted  as  temporary  chairman.  Offi- 
cers of  the  meeting  and  a  committee  of  nine  on  resolutions 
were  appointed  as  follows : 

Thomas  Richmond,  president;  Alexander  Loyd, 
Luther  Marsh,  Dr.  Eriel  McArthur,  Eri  B.  Hurlbut,  Rich- 
ard K.  Swift,  and  James  M.  Morrison,  vice  presidents;  A. 
G.  Throop,  Carlos  Haven,  Mr.  McArthur,  secretaries. 
The  committee  was  composed  of  George  Manierre,  Robert 
H.  Foss,  Charles  Walker,  Nathan  H.  Bolles,  N.  Norton, 
Geo.  A.  Ingalls,  L.  C.  Paine  Freer,  Dr.  B.  McVicker  and 
Isaac  N.  Arnold.  Dr.  McVicker  addressed  the  meeting 
while  the  committee  was  preparing  the  report.  He  con- 
demned the  law  as  nefarious  and  declared  his  purpose  to 
yield  no  aid  in  carrying  it  out.  He  recommended  that  the 
colored  people  refrain  from  all  acts  of  violence,  keep  quiet- 
ly at  their  work,  but  be  ready  for  any  emergency.  George 

1    Chicago  Democrat,  Oct.  22nd. 

71 


Manierre,  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  presented  the 
following  resolutions : 

"Revolved,  That  the  fugitive  slave  law  is  unconstitu- 
tional and  void ;  first,  because  Congress  has  no  power  under 
the  constitution  to  legislate  on  the  subject;  that  the  clause 
under  which  the  power  is  claimed  contains  no  grant  of 
the  power  of  legislation  and  is  simply  a  prohibition  on  the 
states  whereby  they  are  forbidden  to  discharge  fugitives 
from  labor  'by  any  law  or  regulation  by  them  enacted ;  and 
secondly,  because  it  is  in  express  violation  of  fundamental 
rights  of  trial  by  jury,  suspends  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
and  abolishes  the  right  of  appeal  from  the  decision  of  an 
inferior  court ;  and  that  in  this  attempt  on  the  part  of  Con- 
gress to  deface  and  obliterate  the  great  landmarks  be- 
tween despotism  and  popular  liberty — absolutism  and  dem- 
ocracy— we  have  proof  strong  as  Holy  Writ  of  the  maxim 
that  eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  of  liberty. 

"Resolved,  That  we  recognize  no  obligation  of  a  moral 
or  legal  value  resting  on  us  as  citizens  to  assist  or  count- 
enance the  execution  of  this  law;  that  void  laws  every- 
where must  be  considered  by  good  citizens  as  divested  of  all 
legal,  and  especially  of  all  moral  force,  and  that  we  do  and 
ever  will  trample  this  underfoot  as  an  unconstitutional 
and  flagitious  attempt  to  impose  infamous  duties  on  con- 
scientious citizens  and  compel  them  to  do  the  devil's  work 
under  the  guise  of  constitutional  obligation. 

"Resolved,  That  this  enactment  should  not  only  cover 
with  reproach  its  authors  and  advocates,  but  those  also  who 
connived  at  its  passage,  concealing  themselves  on  a  final 
vote  to  escape  fthe  indignation  of  a  constituency  whose 
dignity  and  independence  they  have  sacrificed,  and  whose 
character  they  have  blackened  and  disgraced. 

"Resolved,  That  we  are  summoned  to  withstand  the 
execution  of  this  law  not  only  by  the  consideration  of  the 
claims  of  our  suffering  fellowmen  upon  our  sympathies  and 
aid,  but  by  a  proper  regard  for  our  own  personal  liberties ;  as 
this  law  is  no  respecter  of  persons  or  complexions,  making 
no  distinctions  between  whites  and  blacks,  bond  or  free. 

"Resolved,  That  we,  as  the  friends  of  universal  liberty, 
are  admonished  of  the  necessity  of  repeated  and  continuous 
agitation  on  the  great  subject  of  human  slavery  while  a 
free  speech  and  a  free  press  are  yet  ours.  Let  the  country 
be  rocked  as  by  a  tempest  until  the  political  Pharaohs  of 
this  great  land  shall  be  constrained  to  let  the  people  go. 

72 


' 'Resolved,  That  the  portion  of  our  citizens  who  have 
escaped  from  bondage  by  their  own  act,  become  free  men1; 
that  all  laws  seeking  to  'hold  them  in  chains  or  renew  their 
captivity  are  founded  in  force  and  in  contempt  of  natural 
rights,  and  are  not  binding  upon  them,  because  they  are 
not  party  to  them,  and  that  by  the  laws  of  nature  and  that 
higher  law  enthroned  above  the  Constitution,  the  law  of 
God,  'they  would  be  justified  in  using  all  means  which  may 
be  necessary  to  their  personal  security  on  free  soil — that 
resistance  to  tyrants  in  obedience  to  God." 

The  reading  of  these  resolutions  was  interrupted  by 
frequent  dieers,  and  ait  the  close  an  outburst  of  enthusi- 
asm showed  the  sympathy  and  satisfaction  of  the  audience, 
— with  perhaps  a  single  exception.  Senator  Douglas 
reached  Chicago  on  Saturday  evening,  October  19.  He 
was  present  at  'this  meeting  Tuesday  evening,  but  came 
late,  and  it  seems  was  not  noticed  until  after  the  reading 
of  the  resolutions.  Then  there  were  loud  and  repeated 
calls  for  'him.  In  reply  he  said  that  he  had  not  intended 
to  make  any  speeches  while  in  Chicago,  but  that  he  could 
not  pass  over  the  personal  charges  made  in  the  Council 
resolutions  on  Monday  evening,  and  invited  all  interested 
to  attend  a  meeting  at  the  City  Hall  Wednesday,  October 
23,  when  he  would  explain  the  nature  of  the  law  and  his 
reasons  for  voting  in  favor  of  it. 

James  H.  Collins  was  called  to  the  platform  amid 
cheers  that  prevented  him  from  speaking  for  several  min- 
utes. His  first  words  were : 

"Honor,  eternal  honor,  to  the  Chicago  Common  Coun- 
cil. Damnation  eternal,  to  those  who  voted  for  or  dodged 
the  vote  on  the  infamous  slave  'bill.  The  men  who  voted 
for  the  bill  are  bad;  the  men  who  sneaked  away  to  avoid 
the  responsibility  of  representing  their  constituents  are  both 
bad  and  base.  He  affirmed  that  the  law  suspended  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  and  trial  by  jury,  and  was  especially  infam- 
ous as  it  required  every  freeman  to  track  the  fugitives. 
Mr.  Collins  closed  by  defying  the  law  and  trampling  a 
copy  of  it  under  his  feet,  to  the  delight  and  admiring  cheers 
of  his  hearers. 

Dr.  Charles  Volney  Dyer,  station-master,  section-boss, 
and  general  superintendent  of  the  underground  railroad  in 
Chicago,  was  the  next  speaker.  He  saw  much  stronger 
resolutions  in  the  faces  of  his  fellow  citizens  before  him, 
than  those  passed  by  the  meeting.  As  for  the  conscientious 

73 


constitutional  scruples  of  Senators  and  Congressmen,  they 
could  be  removed  as  easily  as  a  doctor  removes  scruples 
from  one  paper  to  another  by  a  few  significant  hints  from 
the  people.  Mr.  Manierre  discussed  the  legal  questions  in- 
volved, and  Mr.  J.  Young  Scammon  counselled  against 
hasty  action.  For  himself,  he  would  not  willingly  be  a 
party  to  the  execution  of  the  law,  yet  he  was  convinced  that 
it  was  unconstitutional.  He  thought  it  only  fair  that  Sen- 
ator Douglas  be  allowed  to  state  his  side  of  the  case.  Amid 
much  confusion  and  excitement  the  meeting  adjourned  to 
Friday,  October  25.* 

The  City  Hall  was  crowded  to  its  doors  Wednesday 
evening,  October  24,  upon  the  occasion  of  Senator  Douglas' 
speech  in  defense  of  the  fugitive  slave  bill.  Douglas'  pop- 
ularity was  at  its  height.  He  had  succeeded  in  passing  the 
Illinois  Central  Railroad  bill,  from  which  much  was  hoped 
and  more  to  be  realized.  Douglas  was  elected  to  the  Sen- 
ate at  the  age  of  thirty-three,  and  was  now  thirty-seven 
years  old.  Ampere  believed  that  he  was  the  coming  West- 
ern statesman.  The  genius  and  ability  of  Douglas  expand- 
ed under  opposition.  He  gloried  in  a  fight;  and  of  all 
his  triumphs  it  seems  to  me  that  none  is  greater  than  that 
of  Wednesday,  October  24,  1850.  There  was  not  the 
slightest  evidence  of  weakness  or  of  yielding  in  his  speech. 
His  logic,  good^humor,  sarcasm,  and  powers  of  persua- 
sion never  appeared  stronger  than  at  this  time.  He  spoke 
for  three  hours  and  a  half,  and  apparently  convinced  his 
audience,  for  they  passed  without  a  dissenting  vote  a  series 
of  resolutions  drawn  up  by  his  own  hand.  Time  will  not 
permit  more  than  a  summary  of  the  points  of  his  argument. 
"Congress,  after  a  protracted  session  of  nearly  two  months, 
succeeded  in  passing  a  system  of  measures,  which  are  be- 
lieved to  be  just  to  all  parts  of  the  republic,  and  ought  to  be 
satisfactory  to  the  people.  But  the  people  in  both  sec- 
tions of  the  Union  are  called  upon  to  resist  the  laws  of  the 
land  and  the  authority  of  the  Federal  Government  even 
unto  death  and  disunion."  Referring  to  the  resolutions 
of  the  Council,  Senator  Douglas  said:  "I  make  no  criti- 
cism upon  the  language  in  which  they  are  expressed :  that 
is  a  matter  of  taste,  and  in  everything  of  that  kind  I  defer 
to  the  superior  refinement  of  our  City  Fathers.  But  it 

(Chicago  Democrat,  oct,  22  to  Oct.  30. 
1      <  Chicago  Journal,  Oct.  22  to  Oct.  30. 
(.Western  Citizen,  Oct.  22  and  29. 


74 


cannot  be  disguised  that  the  polite  epithets  of  'traitors 
Benedict  Arnold  and  Judas  Iscariot,  who  betrayed  his  Lord 
and  master  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver'  will  be  understood 
abroad  as  having  direct  personal  application  to  my  esteem- 
ed colleague,  General  Shields,  and  myself.  The  personal 
bearing  of  the  resolutions  is  unimportant.  It  is  a  far  more 
important  and  serious  matter  when  viewed  with  reference 
to  the  principles  involved  and  the  consequences  which  may 
result.  The  Common  Council  of  Chicago  have  assumed  to 
themselves  the  right  and  have  actually  exercised  the 
power  of  determining  the  validity  of  an  act  of  Congress, 
and  have  declared  it  null  and  void,  upon  the  ground  that 
it  violates  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the 
laws  of  God.  They  have  gone  further:  they  declared  by 
a  solemn  official  act,  that  a  law  passed  by  Congress  'ought 
not  to  be  respected  by  any  intelligent  community'  and  have 
called  upon  the  'citizens,  officers,  and  police  of  the  city'  to 
abstain  from  rendering  any  aid  or  assistance  in  its  exe- 
cution. What  is  this  'but  naked,  unmitigated  nullification  ? 
An  act  of  the  American  Congress  nullified  by  the  Common 
Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago !  Whence  did  the  Council 
derive  their  authority?  I  have  been  able  to  find  no  such 
provision  in  the  city  charter,  nor  am  I  aware  that  the 
Legislature  of  Illinois  is  vested  with  any  rightful  power  to 
confer  such  authority.  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  a  subordi- 
nate municipal  corporation  is  licensed  to  raise  the  stand- 
ard of  rebellion,  and  throw  off  the  authority  of  the  Federal 
Government  at  pleasure.  This  is  a  great  improvement 
upon  South  Carolina  nullification.  It  dispenses  with  the 
trouble,  delay  and  expense  of  convening  Legislatures  and 
assemibling  conventions  of  the  people,  for  the  purpose  of 
resiolving  themselves  back  into  their  original  elements, 
preparatory  to  the  contemplated  revolution.  It  has  the 
high  merit  of  marching  directly  to  its  object,  and  by  a 
simple  resolution,  written  and  adopted  on  the  same  night, 
relieving  the  people  from  their  oaths  and  allegiance,  and 
putting  the  nation  and  its  laws  at  defiance.  It  has  hereto- 
fore been  supposed,  by  men  of  antiquated  notions  who  have 
not  kept  up  with  the  progress  of  the  age,  that  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  was  invested  with  the  power 
of  determining  the  validity  of  an  act  of  Congress  passed 
in  pursuance  of  the  forms  of  the  Constitution.  This  was 
the  doctrine  of  the  entire  North,  and  of  the  nation,  when 
it  became  necessary  to  exert  the  whole  power  of  the  Gov- 

75 


ernment  to  put  down  nullification  in  another  portion  of  the 
Union.  But  the  spirit  of  the  age  is  progressive,  and  is  by 
no  means  confined  to  advancement  in  the  arts  and  physical 
science.  The  science  of  politics  and  of  government  is  also 
rapidly  advancing  to  maturity  and  perfection.  It  is  not 
long  since  that  I  heard  an  eminent  lawyer  propose  an  im- 
portant reform  in  the  admirable  judicial  system  of  the 
State,  which  he  thought  would  render  it  perfect.  It  is  so 
simple  and  eminently  practicable,  that  it  could  not  fail  to 
excite  the  admiration  of  even  the  casual  inquirer.  His 
proposition  was,  that  our  judicial  system  should  be  so  im- 
proved as  to  allow  an  appeal  on  all  constitutional  ques- 
tions, from  the  Supreme  Court  of  this  State  to  two  Justices 
of  the  Peace.  When  that  shall  have  been  effected,  but  one 
other  reform  will  be  necessary  to  render  our  national  sys- 
tem perfect;  and  that  is,  to  change  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion, so  as  to  authorize  an  appeal,  upon  all  questions  touch- 
ing the  validity  of  acts  of  Congress,  from  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  to  the  Common  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago." 

Douglas  then  discussed  in  order  the  grounds  of  ob- 
jection to  the  law  as  presented  in  the  Council  resolutions. 
Only  an  outline  of  this  argument  can  be  given. 

"The  objections  to  the  law  are  two  in  number;  that 
it  suspends  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  time  of  peace, 
in  violation  of  the  Constitution ;  and  that  it  abolishes  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury.  How  did  the  Council  find  that  these 
two  provisions  were  contained  in  the  law?  The  law  itself 
does  not  mention  either  subject.  Is  it  to  be.  said  that  an 
act  of  Congress,  which  is  silent  on  the  subject,  ought  to 
be  construed  to  repeal  a  great  constitutional  right  by  impli- 
cation? Besides,  this  act  is  only  amendatory  to  the  act  of 
1793.  Both  are  silent  upon  these  subjects.  If  this  construc- 
tion1 is  correct,  then  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  has  been 
suspended  and  the  trial  by  jury  abolished  for  more  than 
half  a  century  without  anybody  discovering  it." 

Here  Mr.  Douglas  -was  asked  what  construction  was 
to  be  put  upon  the  last  clause  of  the  sixth  section  of  the 
bill,  whereby  the  certificate  of  the  commissioner  "shall  pre- 
vent all  molestation  of  said  person  or  persons  by  any  pro- 
cess issued  by  any  court,  judge,  magistrate,  or  other  per- 
son whomsoever." 

Mr.  Douglas'  construction  was  not  far  removed  from 
that  of  his  opponents,  for  by  it  the  writ  was  to  determine 

76 


whether  the  claimant  had  a  certificate  in  due  form,  but 
did  not  touch  the  vital  question  of  freedom. 

"The  new  act  neither  takes  away  nor  confers  the  right 
of  trial  by  jury.  That  right,"  said  Senator  Douglas,  "exists 
in  this  country  for  all  men,  black  and  white,  bond  or  free, 
guilty  or  innocent.  The  only  question  is  when  shall  this 
jury  trial  take  place?  The  jury  trial  is  always  had  in  the 
State  from  which  the  fugitive  fled.  There  is  great  uniform- 
ity in  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  the  courts  of  the  Southern 
States.  There  the  question  of  freedom  or  servitude  is  tried 
by  a  jury,  and  every  facility  is  offered  to  the  negro  to  prove 
his  case.  The  law  of  1793  was  passed  by  the  patriots  and 
sages  who  formed  the  Constitution.  I  have  always  been 
taught  to  believe  that  they  were  well  versed  in  the  science 
of  government,  devotedly  attached  to  the  cause  of  freedom, 
and  capable  of  construing  the  Constitution  in  the  spirit 
in  which  they  made  it." 

The  attention  of  Mr.  Douglas  was  called  to  the  penal- 
ties under  the  new  law. 

"The  two  laws  are  substantially  the  same,"  he  replied. 
"I  can  conceive  of  no  act  which  would  be  an  offense  under 
the  one  that  would  not  be  punishable  under  the  other.  The 
only  difference  between  the  old  law  and  the  new  is  in  the 
amount  of  the  penalty,  not  in  the  principle  involved." 

A  gentleman  present  desired  an  explanation  of  the 
object  and  effect  of  the  record  from  another  State  provided 
by  the  tenth  section. 

"I  am  glad,"  said  Mr.  Douglas,  "that  my  attention 
has  been  called  to  that  section.  It  was  said  last  night  that 
this  provision  authorizes  the  claimant  to  go  before  a  court 
of  record  of  the  county  and  State  where  he  lives,  and  there 
establish,  by  ex-parte  testimony,  in  the  absence  of  the  fugi- 
tive, the  facts  of  ownership,  servitude,and  escape ;  and  when 
a  record  of  these  facts  shall  have  been  made,  containing  a 
minute  description  of  the  slave,  it  shall  be  conclusive  evi- 
dence against  a  person  corresponding  to  that  description, 
arrested  in  another  State,  and  shall  consign  the  person  so 
arrested  to  perpetual  servitude.  The  law  contemplates  no 
such  thing  and  authorizes  no  such  results.  The  record  is 
conclusive  of  two  facts  only : 

"First,  That  the  person  named  in  this  record  does  owe 
service  to  the  persons  in  whose  behalf  the  record  is  made. 

"Second,  That  such  person  has  escaped  from  service. 

"The  question  of  identity  is  to  be  proven  here  to  the 

77 


"Resolved^  That  any  law  enacted  by  Congress,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  Constitution,  should  be  respected  as  such  by 
all  good  and  law-abiding  citizens,  and  should  be  faithfully 
carried  into  effect  by  the  officers  charged  with  its  execution. 

"Resolved,  That  so  long  as  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  provides  that  all  persons  held  to  service  or 
labor  in  one  State,  escaping  into  another  State,  'shall  be 
delivered  up  on  the  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  tfhe  service 
of  labor  may  be  due,'  and  so  long  as  members  of  Congress 
are  required  to  take  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  it 
is  their  solemn  'and  religious  duty  to  pass  all  laws  neces- 
sary to  carry  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  into  effect. 

"Resolved,  That  if  we  desire  to  preserve  the  Union, 
and  render  our  great  republic  inseparable  and  perpetual, 
we  must  perform  all  our  obligations  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, at  the  same  time  that  we  call  upon  our  brethren  in 
other  States  to  yield  implicit  obedience  to  it. 

"Resolved,  That  as  the  lives,  property  and  safety  of 
ourselves  and  our  families  depend  upon  the  observance 
and  protection  of  the  laws,  every  effort  to  excite  any  por- 
tion of  our  population  to  make  resistance  to  the  due  execu- 
tion of  the  laws  of  the  land,  should  be  promptly  and  em- 
phatically condemned  by  every  good  citizen. 

"Resolved,  That  we  will  stand  or  fall  by  the  Ameri- 
can Union  and  its  Constitution,  with  all  its  compromises, 
with  its  glorious  memories  of  the  past,  and  precious  hope 
of  the  future." 

(The  following  was  offered  in  addition  by  Buckner 
S.  Morris,  and  also  adopted :) 

"Resolved,  That  we,  the  people  of  Chicago,  repudiate 
the  resolutions  passed  by  the  Common  Council  of  Chicago 
upon  the  subject  of  the  fugitive  slave  law  passed  by  Con- 
gress at  its  last  session." 

The  Journal  of  October  24,  commenting  on  the  speech, 
said: 

"Senator  Douglas  said  last  night  that  the  fugitive 
slave  law  did  not  abolish  trial  by  jury — did  not  suspend 
habeas  corpus  — was  no  worse  than  the  old  law — in  fact, 
was  rather  a  protection  to  the  slave  than  otherwise.  We 
have  no  doubt  he  was  sincere  in  his  opinions,  but  if  the 
people  have  been  so  deceived  in  the  reading  of  the  law,  it 
is  ample  time  they  were  enlightened.  The  law  may  be  all 
right  enough  if  the  people  could  only  comprehend  it,  but 
with  all  the  light  that  has  been  thrown  upon  it,  we  still 

80 


confess  to  an  obtuseness.  If  this  law  is  what  its  champion 
claimed  for  it  last  night,  it  is  due  to  the  country  that  it 
should  have  been  made  as  clear  to  the  minds  of  the  people 
as  it  was  to  his  own.  We  are  by  no  means  convinced  that 
it  is  any  the  less  infamous  in  its  provisions  and  its  spirit." 

Among  the  local  items  is  the  following:  "The  other 
day  the  Council  deposed  the  Mayor  and  repealed  the  fugi- 
tive slave  law.  Senator  Douglas  demolished  the  Common 
Council  last  night." 

But  the  Council  still  gave  signs  of  life.  An  adjourned 
meeting  was  held  Thursday,  October  24,  for  further  action 
on  the  resolutions  of  the  2ist. 

Alderman  Dodge  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  at 
the  last  meeting  on  the  passage  of  the  preamble  and  reso- 
lutions regarding  the  fugitive  slave  law.  Alderman  Ham- 
ilton offered  the  following  order,  and  moved  to  lay  it  on 
the  table  for  further  action:1 

"Ordered,  That  the  Clerk  be  directed  and  requested 
to  expunge  from  the  records  of  the  Council  the  preamble 
and  resolutions  adopted  at  the  late  meeting  of  the  Council 
on  the  evening  of  the  2ist,  in  reference  to  the  act  of  Con- 
gress passed  at  its  late  session,  commonly  known  as  the 
fugitive  slave  law."2  This  order  was  tabled  until  Novem- 
ber 29,  and  is  the  action  of  the  Council  which  Senator 
Douglas  construed  as  a  repudiation  of  the  resolutions  of 
October  21.  The  largest  meeting  of  the  year  was  that  held 
Friday  evening,  October  25,  to  express  opinions  concerning 
the  fugitive  slave  law  and  to  hear  arguments  in  opposition 
to  those  expressed  by  Senator  Douglas. 

The  first  speaker,  James  H.  Collins,  confined  himself 
to  the  two  points  of  trial  by  jury  and  the  writ  of  habeas 
corf  us.  He  said  in  part:  "The  new  law  contains  an  ex- 
pression more  comprehensive  and  inclusive  than  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus — the  expression  process.  By  the  law  the 
claimant  cannot  be  molested  by  any  process.  The  provi- 
sions are  very  explicit  and  cannot  be  mistaken  or  miscon- 
strued. The  bill  provides  for  a  summary  trial,  and  a  sum- 
mary trial  always  means  a  trial  without  jury.  The  com- 
missioner is  the  sole  judge  in  the  case,  and  from  his  deci- 
sion, however  corrupt  it  may  be,  or  however  based  on  false 
affidavits,  there  is  no  appeal." 

Mr.  George  Manniere  followed,  showing  that  the  pro- 

1  Democrat,  Oct.  25. 

2  Journal,  Oct.  26. 

81 


ceedings  under  the  new  law  were  unconstitutional  because 
they  deprived  persons  of  liberty  without  due  process  of 
law,  in  that  they  were  ex-parte.  He  read  the  amendments 
proposed  and  defeated  in  the  Senate  allowing  trial  by  jury 
and  habeas  corpus  proceedings.  It  was  the  opinion  of  the 
speaker  that  Senator  Douglas'  speech  had  done  more  to 
deaden  the  moral  sense  of  the  community  than  any  one 
thing  that  had  occurred  within  the  memory  of  Chicago 
citizens. 

The  principal  speaker  of  the  evening  was  Edmund 
Channing  Larned.  He  spoke  for  over  an  hour  in  direct 
answer  to  the  arguments  of  Senator  Douglas,  and  to  the 
great  delight  of  the  audience.  A  few  extracts  will  show 
the  character  of  his  speech. 

"One  high  in  the  councils  of  the  nation  says  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  citizen  who  respects  the  Constitu- 
tion to  aid  in  carrying  out  and  enforcing  the  fugitive  law — 
a  law  which  I  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  the  most  infamous 
ever  passed  by  the  representatives  of  a  free  people.  I  can- 
not give  my  aid  and  sanction  to  that  law,  and  I  stand  here 
not  as  a  partisan  and  a  politician,  but  as  an  American  citi- 
zen speaking  to  an  assembly  of  his  fellow  citizens  to  give 
the  reasons  why  I  condemn  that  law  and  refuse  to  give  any 
aid  to  its  enforcement.  I  am  no  friend  of  violence.  I  am  no 
disorganizer  or  advocate  of  mob  law. 

A  law  passed  to  carry  out  a  constitutional  provision 
is  not  therefore  constitutional.  I  respect  the  compact  our 
fathers  made.  I  acknowledge  the  force  of  its  compromises, 
and  am  willing  to  carry  them  out  in  the  letter  and  spirit. 
Whenever  a  proper  and  constitutional  law  shall  be  passed 
by  Congress,  I  shall  be  obliged,  much  as  I  deplore  slavery 
in  our  midst,  to  give  such  a  law  my  unequivocal  sanction 
and  support.  I  am  not  contending  against  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  against  this  law.  The  section  of  the  Constitution 
upon  which  this  law  is  based  was  made  necessary  because 
by  the  common  law  of  England  a  slave  would  have  been 
free  the  moment  he  entered  a  free  State.  This  section 
gave  the  owner  a  standing  in  court.  He  was  permitted  to 
establish  on  free  soil  and  among  free  men  the  ownership  of 
a  human  being,  and  empowered  to  take  him  away. 

"The  compact  which  our  fathers  made  and  to  which 
we  are  held  is  this:  That  they  would  pass  no  law  dis- 
charging the  slave  from  his  servitude,  and  that  when  the 
right  of  a  claimant  has  been  made  out  by  competent  evi- 


dence  and  in  a  legal  manner,  the  slave  shall  be  delivered 
up  to  his  master. 

"The  Senator  says  that  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  is 
not  taken  away  because  the  act  does  not  say  one  word  about 
it.  The  act  takes  it  away  because  it  provides  another  and 
different  mode  of  trial — a  summary  trial  is  not  a  jury  trial. 

"The  Senator  says  that  the  right  of  trial  is  given  by 
the  Constitution,  and  cannot  be  taken  away  by  implica- 
tion, therefore  there  is  a  trial  by  jury  under  this  act. 

"What  is  that  trial  by  jury  ?  A  right  to  try  the  ques- 
tion of  identity.  A  blessed  boon  to  freedom.  Is  that  the 
point  to  be  tried  ?  The  question  is  not  whether  Tom  Jones 
is  Tom  Jones,  but  whether  Tom  Jones  is  a  slave.  It  is 
the  question  of  slavery  or  freedom  that  we  want  tried. 
Senator  Douglas  compared  this  act  with  that  referring  to 
fugitives  from  justice." 

"A  fugitive  from  justice  is  arrested  and  delivered  up 
to  whom — a  hungry  creditor,  a  vindicative  foe,  or  an  inter- 
ested slave  holder?  No.  Into  the  hands  of  the  law.  Into 
the  keeping  of  the  officers  of  the  law  until  he  is  presented 
to  the  grand  jury,  indicted,  arraigned,  and  tried  according 
to  the  law  of  the  land.  Are  there  any  such  proceedings 
under  this  law?  No.  The  action  of  the  commissioner  is 
final :  'he  adjudges  the  accused  to  be  a  slave,  pronounces 
the  sentence,  inflicts  the  doom,  turns  him  over  to  his  mas- 
ter, and  the  matter  is  ended  finally  and  forever.  Is  this  the 
law?  Is  this  justice?  Is  this  the  Constitution?  God 
forbid  that  any  man  should  so  disgrace  and  blacken  the 
names  and  memories  of  that  glorious  old  band  of  heroes 
and  patriots." 

The  writ  of  habeas  corpus  can  be  used  only  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  certificate  granted  by  the  commissioner  is 
legal  in  form.  Is  this  all  that  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
amounts  to?  Was  it  for  such  a  miserable  technicality  as 
this  that  our  fathers  for  long  ages  contended?  Did  they 
mean  that  the  writ  should  only  give  power  to  look  at  the 
seal  and  signatures  of  a  Star  Chamber  Court?  It  is  a 
mockery  to  talk  about  this  being  a  privilege  of  habeas 
corpus. " 

"But  Mr.  Douglas  said  that  this  law  is  no  more  than 
the  law  of  1793.  He  tells  you  that  this  bill  is  better  than 
the  law  of  1793.  Why,  gentlemen,  when  the  honorable 
Senator  was  upon  this  part  of  the  argument  I  began  to 
doubt  if  I  should  not  go  home  and  thank  God  for  the  great 


blessing  vouchsafed  us  in  this  new  fugitive  slave  law.  Yet 
in  the  sixty  years  in  which  this  law  has  been  in  force 
our  colored  brethren  have  been  pursuing  their  vocations  in 
tranquillity  and  contentment.  Now  they  are  fleeing  to 
Canada  as  fast  as  wind  and  steam  can  carry  mem.  From 
East  to  West  there  has  come  one  indignant  burst  of  feel- 
ing." 

"Now,  did  you  ever  see  such  stupid  people — such  a 
nation  of  fools  and  blockheads?  Do  they  not  see,  can 
they  not  understand  that  this  is  Senator  Douglas'  improved 
slave  bill — that  it  is  a  great  deal  better  than  the  old  one — 
that  it  is  not  different  from  the  old  one — and  has  got  new 
securities,  designed  specially  for  the  benefit  of  fugitive 
slaves?  " 

"Why  did  the  South  want  a  new  fugitive  slave  bill? 
Because  the  old  law  was  defective.  It  did  not  provide  suf- 
ficient securities  for  the  poor  fugitives. 

"The  law  of  1793  was  not  objected  to:  First,  because 
it  allowed  the  judge  to  try  the  case  judicially  and  not  min- 
isterially. Then  it  was  inoperative.  Had  it  not  been  so,  it 
would  have  created  excitement  similar  to  that  caused  by 
the  present  bill. 

"Why  should  we  be  asked  to  give  the  institution  of 
slavery  peculiar  privileges  ?  Let  the  proper  law  be  passed, 
giving  the  alleged  fugitive  all  the  safeguards  and  immuni- 
ties provided  by  the  common  law,  and  I,  for  one,  will  give 
it  my  conscientious  and  honest  sanction  and  support." 

A  series  of  resolutions  milder  in  tone  than  those  adopt- 
ed Tuesday  evening  were  then  prepared.  Great  excitement 
prevailed.  Men  were  standing  on  chairs  in  various  parts 
of  the  house,  endeavoring  to  catch  the  eye  of  the  chairman. 
The  resolutions  were  put  to  vote  and  declared  to  be  adopt- 
ed amid  great  confusion.  The  meeting  broke  up  without  a 
regular  motion  to  adjourn. 

Another  meeting  was  held  Saturday  evening  to  give 
expression  to  the  other  side  of  the  question.  The  speeches 
were  political  and  in  praise  of  Senator  Douglas.  The  meet- 
ing gradually  dissolved  without  adjournment. 

Thus  ended  the  most  exciting  week  in  the  early  his- 
tory of  Chicago.  The  sentiment  of  the  people  was  not  ma- 
terially changed  by  the  speeches  of  Senator  Douglas  and 
his  friends,  though  their  advice  upon  the  observance  of 
law  and  order  was  followed.  The  feeling  that  "Resistance 
to  tyrants  is  the  obedience  to  God"  was  shown  in  one  or 

84 


two  cases  early  in  November,  when  Southern  men  came 
to  Chicago  in  search  of  fugitives.  People  thought  less  of 
resistance,  except  in  particular  cases,  and  more  of  unceas- 
ing agitation  for  the  repeal  of  the  law  and  the  exclusion  of 
slavery  from  theTerritories.  The  closing  scene  of  the  drama 
was  thus  announced  in  the  Journal, Friday,  November,  29: 

"The  City  Fathers  meet  tonight,  as  we  learn,  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a  final  disposition  of  the  fugitive  slave 
law.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  they  will  communicate  the 
result  to  Congress,  either  by  telegraph  or  express,  as  it 
would  be  calamitous  for  the  wheels  of  government  to  stand 
still." 

The  Council  minutes  for  November  29,  1850,  read  as 
follows : 

"The  Council  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The  ob- 
ject of  the  meeting  was  to  consider  the  fugitive  slave  resolu- 
tions. The  order  offered  by  Alderman  Hamilton,  to  ex- 
punge from  the  records,  which  had  been  tabled  by  his  mo- 
tion, October  24,  together  with  the  substitute  offered  by 
Alderman  Dodge  for  the  original  preamble  and  resolutions 
were  then  taken  up  and  the  question  in  order  being  the 
adoption,  Alderman  Dodge's  substitute  was  approved  by 
the  following  vote : 

"Ayes — Adams,  Milliken,  Loyd,  Sherwood,  Richards, 
Throop,  Haines,  Sherman,  Foss,  Dodge  and  Foster. 

"Nays — Page,   Williams  and  Hamilton. 
These  substituted  resolutions  read : 

"Whereas,  The  fugitive  slave  law  recently  passed  by 
Congress  is  revolting  to  our  moral  sense  and  an  outrage 
upon  our  feelings  of  justice  and  humanity,  because  it  dis- 
regards all  the  securities  which  the  Constitution  and  laws 
have  thrown  around  personal  liberty,  and  its  direct  ten- 
dency is  to  alienate  the  people  from  their  love  and  reverence 
for  the  government  and  institutions  of  our  country.  There- 
fore 

"Resolved,  That  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
Staes  has  solemnly  adjudged  that  State  officers  are  under 
no  obligations  to  fulfil  duties  imposed  upon  them  as  such 
officers  by  an  act  of  Congress,  we  do  not,  therefore,  con- 
sider it  our  duty  to  counsel  the  city  officers  of  the  city  of 
Chicago,  to  aid  or  assist  in  the  arrest  of  fugitives  from 
oppression,  and  by  withholding  such  aid  or  assistance  we 
do  not  believe  that  our  harbor  appropriations  will  be  with- 

85 


held,  our  railroads  injured,  or  our  commerce  destroyed,  or 
that  treason  could  be  committed  against  the  Government." 

Alderman  Hamilton  introduced  the  following  order: 

"Ordered,  That  the  clerk  be  directed  and  requested 
to  expunge  from  the  records  of  the  proceedings  of  the  said 
Council  the  resolutions  in  reference  to  the  act  of  Congress 
at  its  last  session,  commonly  known  as  the  fugitive  slave 
act." 

This  order  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  nine  to  three. 

Thus  were  the  co-ordinate  powers  of  the  Common 
Council  of  Chicago  established  and  its  independence  main- 
tained. 


86 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


30112067940889 


